I'm not counting on anything, but I'm hoping tournaments eventually get baked right into the app by the developers. Until then, the forum tournaments that have been run seem to be working fine, minus a few no-shows.

good idea im all for it

topkilla wrote:This isn’t Chess though… I don’t believe Subterfuge is even remotely similar to Chess either. And simply put, ELO ranking doesn’t work for 1v1v1…’s. And ELO doesn’t work for tournament playing either. And ELO ranking is extremely complicated.

I still think these titles are overly complex and devalue actually winning the tournament entered. I believe the simple number ranking systems is the best, and also the easiest.

Unforeseen problems are always a problem in tournaments no matter how well thought out they are. But these problems are relatively easy to figure out. From what I’ve seen so far, is most of the tournaments have taken the same basic rule set that I created for my tournament and slightly adapted it. Either to improve upon it a bit, or to alter the way the game is intended to be played. It’s safe to assume that anyone who decides to set up a tournament, will probably do the same thing.

I know subterfuge isn't chess, but its a lot more similar than most other games out there. Its almost a board game, except there are some calculations which are way too complex to be done by hand, which is why a processor is required to run the game.

And also, how do these devalue winning the tournament entered? Because if you come 1st then 2nd and 3rd also get prizes? but then that devalues coming second or third in the tournament...

And the titles may seem overly complex to start, and I doubt most of you actually read the whole thing because its so long, but subterfuge is a complex game compared to most other games. Its complexity is why I choose to play it, its why I like the game. Learning it wasn't easy either, but once you get used to it, its just like riding a bike. You know what everything does and where everything goes and so on... And plus, most of it is just me being pedantic. I could easily shorten the whole thing to:
"
In any tournament the top X% of participants are awarded the respective titles.
1. STOC Master Top 3% 2 points
2. HighMaster Top 1% 4 points
3. EliteMaster Top 0.25% 10 points
The following cannot be won from a normal tournament, they must be awarded under the following conditions.
4. SupremeMaster - Accumulate 25 points
5. GrandMaster - Win the annual 'GM Qualifiers Tournament' which is only open to SM's and GM's
"

And I'm not too sure what you mean by 'simple number raking system'

And what? I never mentioned anything about ELO did I? If I did it was probably the idea to take the ELO ratings of people from the leaderboards into consideration when awarding titles (perhaps as a suggestion or change to the current ideas)

And I'm sure new tournament makers like us are going to want some help in making good tournaments. Of course, hosting one tournament does not make you an experienced host. There may seem to be relatively simple problems to solve for now, but without experience how can one tell? Its like looking at the top of an iceberg while others have never seen one and saying 'I know what an iceberg looks like' when really you've only seen a tenth of it, which floats above the water. A person who really can tell you that you don't know that you don't know (or which is part of the unknown unknowns - you don't know that you don't know) what the whole iceberg looks like is someone who has really seen the entire iceberg. And the STOC will (eventually) be able to act as this person, more or less, although there are always things we can improve on, it will be better than just letting the newbies make tournaments themselves.

I don't like to pick on people, but just take spungee's E-Sports Subterfuge 6 Player Tournament (sorry) as an example. Seeing as you have already made the mistake of starting a game without enough people, I warned spungee about this and the rules were changed. If that wwas part of the guidelines of tournament making then people who read through them will make better tournaments. And of course, you might say that this is a trivial mistake that is easily fixed, but the problem is that we don't know how many more problems are still to come, and how complex they may turn out to be. And of course there is no limit on how good a tournament can be run.

So basically with STOC, the tournaments will be a lot better, and we won't have to have everyone constantly poiting out things for newbie-hosts. And the best part is that you don't even have to do anything, you can just let me and the others who are passionate about Subterfuge do it (I'm not saying that you aren't, but certainly not in the area of tournament committees)

+1! Love it. (The ranking thing still seems a bit weird to me as you can just play a few tournaments and accumulate points and eventually everyone can get super grand master it whatever if they play enough tournaments and get lucky. I like my way of rating it better (#of points earned/#of games) creates a more KDR (kill/death ratio) of a sorts for the tournament players. Higher ratio is a better rank (of course we would not put you on the leaver board until you played X games to prevent someone from winning one game and getting the macimum possible ration and never playing again.

About setting up tournaments, I really like this. Having a committee help create the tournaments and having a guideline of what to do in every specific circumstance where something can go wrong is a really well thought idea to make all tournaments the same. For example, in the 2v2 tournament, someone on the opposing team built a mine before day 10 (against the rules) thus the team should have been disqualified. However it was previewed as though they 'lost the game' when we won rather than having a 'disqualified' status tagged to their team/player. This consistent enforcement and possibly even documentation of which players are more responsible for showing up to games on time and which players get disqualified vs just lose a game.

I think the committee should definitely be a go ahead but before its creation, it should have a poll on the forum where all subterfuge players vote the committee into existence. Then we would know there is a general acceptance of the committee's workings and functionality.

I would be down to write up some documents with you guys outlining procedures and workings of the committee and their delegations on my winter break. (Google docs?) If nobody steps forward to put this into action I *may* volunteer as tribute to lead the group through its initial stages until proper management and volunteers are voted/appointed/whatever.

EDIT: I have a ton of spelling errors but I'm on mobile and too lazy to fix them. I swear I'm good at grammar.

English isn't my first language so I might miss some things when reading between the lines, or see things that aren't there. But I think this thread has had the discussion it needed. There are people in favor and against the idea of a committee.

You are of course free to start a committee and host tournaments following your own format with the accompanying championship titles. Why don't you guys just get started, or have a poll like r10t suggested.

Maybe (just a suggestion) take preparation into a non-public platform like Private Messages, so you can coordinate your ideas and post them when they're ready.

(Thank you for taking "official" out of the committee name, by the way!)

r10t-- wrote:+1! Love it. (The ranking thing still seems a bit weird to me as you can just play a few tournaments and accumulate points and eventually everyone can get super grand master it whatever if they play enough tournaments and get lucky. I like my way of rating it better (#of points earned/#of games) creates a more KDR (kill/death ratio) of a sorts for the tournament players. Higher ratio is a better rank (of course we would not put you on the leaver board until you played X games to prevent someone from winning one game and getting the macimum possible ration and never playing again.

About setting up tournaments, I really like this. Having a committee help create the tournaments and having a guideline of what to do in every specific circumstance where something can go wrong is a really well thought idea to make all tournaments the same. For example, in the 2v2 tournament, someone on the opposing team built a mine before day 10 (against the rules) thus the team should have been disqualified. However it was previewed as though they 'lost the game' when we won rather than having a 'disqualified' status tagged to their team/player. This consistent enforcement and possibly even documentation of which players are more responsible for showing up to games on time and which players get disqualified vs just lose a game.

I think the committee should definitely be a go ahead but before its creation, it should have a poll on the forum where all subterfuge players vote the committee into existence. Then we would know there is a general acceptance of the committee's workings and functionality.

I would be down to write up some documents with you guys outlining procedures and workings of the committee and their delegations on my winter break. (Google docs?) If nobody steps forward to put this into action I *may* volunteer as tribute to lead the group through its initial stages until proper management and volunteers are voted/appointed/whatever.

EDIT: I have a ton of spelling errors but I'm on mobile and too lazy to fix them. I swear I'm good at grammar.

Oh I see where you're getting at with the titles. Well I had considered the problem of there being too many masters or whatever and I guess it may become a problem in the future. I think you're idea is reasonable. But to make it work each tournament would have to have some ranking system to record who was first and second and so on all the way down to last. Then the 1st person would get 100% and the last person would get 100%/amount of players, if you get what I mean.

Or maybe I should put it this way:
There needs to be a ranking system for the tournaments that want to be recognized as a STOC tounament and have STOC's ranking system applied. The % given to each player at the end of the tournament is the % of people they beat or tied with in their tournament. Here an example.
Tournament 1 Results:
1st.......Person1.......100%
2nd......Person2.......95%
3rd......Person3.......90%
..........Person4.......85%
5th......Person5.......80%
6th......Person6.......75%
7th......Person7.......70%
..........Person8.......65%
..........Person9.......60%
..........Person10.....55%
11th.....Person11.....50%
..........Person12.....45%
13th.....Person13.....40%
..........Person14.....35%
..........Person15.....30%
..........Person16.....25%
..........Person17.....20%
..........Person18.....15%
..........Person19.....10%
..........Person20.....5%

You can see that I've also included the percentile that each person would be ranked at.
So Player1 would get a rating of 100%, Player2 a rating of 95%, and so on. But the people who tied get the same percentile as the highest person in the tie, so Person20 would get 40% because being 13th= meant that he beat or tied with 40% of the people. Person9 would get 70%, and so on.

Then maybe after a person has played 3 games we could average out his/her percentage and that would be their score, if someone play more games then average the percentage for all the tournaments they've played (or maybe only the previous 10 or 15). We would probably keep an excel spreadsheet of all the players and update it after every say, 3 months or so. It would be stuck as a post in the forums and act as a 'tournament' leaderboard.

As for the Title scheme, using this raking system would give a new possibility:
1. The top seed gets the title of GrandMaster
2. The top 0.1% get the title of SupemeMaster
3. The top 0.25% get the title of EliteMaster
4. The top 1% get the title of HIghMaster
5. The top 3% get the title of STOC Master
Dropping out of the top X% after an update means that you lose your title, and you will get your new title/no title accordingly, and vice versa. If someone doesn't play a tournament in 6 months their percentage is removed from the leaderboard but still kept in the database, marked as 'Inactive'. Playing in a new tournament would make your status 'Active' again and their score is calculated again and inserted into the correct seed in the leaderboard. What do you think of this?

stefan wrote:(Thank you for taking "official" out of the committee name, by the way!)

Oh it was never in there...or do you just mean the idea?

That ranking system sounds a lot better! I would be on board with that! As for the 'official' thing I think that he meant he's happy you didn't name it 'official' committee but you always write STOC with 'O' meaning Official, so it should be STC. He doesn't want it to say official because it wasn't created by the devs of the game but the players and I agree with him, STC would be more appropriate.

We should take the suggestion to move to a private message or create a google doc where we can collect ideas for this and we should also (create another forum?) getting a list of people interested and be adding them to our conversations outside the forum.

So if you are interested, myself (or another person interested enough) will create a google doc and post the link to the doc so everyone can see what is going on in the formation process for transparency

topkilla wrote:This isn’t Chess though… I don’t believe Subterfuge is even remotely similar to Chess either. And simply put, ELO ranking doesn’t work for 1v1v1…’s. And ELO doesn’t work for tournament playing either. And ELO ranking is extremely complicated.

I still think these titles are overly complex and devalue actually winning the tournament entered. I believe the simple number ranking systems is the best, and also the easiest.

Unforeseen problems are always a problem in tournaments no matter how well thought out they are. But these problems are relatively easy to figure out. From what I’ve seen so far, is most of the tournaments have taken the same basic rule set that I created for my tournament and slightly adapted it. Either to improve upon it a bit, or to alter the way the game is intended to be played. It’s safe to assume that anyone who decides to set up a tournament, will probably do the same thing.

---

I know subterfuge isn't chess, but its a lot more similar than most other games out there. Its almost a board game, except there are some calculations which are way too complex to be done by hand, which is why a processor is required to run the game.

Subterfuge isn't even remotely related to chess. If this were Stratego, then you could compare it to Chess.

And also, how do these devalue winning the tournament entered? Because if you come 1st then 2nd and 3rd also get prizes? but then that devalues coming second or third in the tournament...

And the titles may seem overly complex to start, and I doubt most of you actually read the whole thing because its so long, but subterfuge is a complex game compared to most other games. Its complexity is why I choose to play it, its why I like the game. Learning it wasn't easy either, but once you get used to it, its just like riding a bike. You know what everything does and where everything goes and so on... And plus, most of it is just me being pedantic. I could easily shorten the whole thing to:
"
In any tournament the top X% of participants are awarded the respective titles.
1. STOC Master Top 3% 2 points
2. HighMaster Top 1% 4 points
3. EliteMaster Top 0.25% 10 points
The following cannot be won from a normal tournament, they must be awarded under the following conditions.
4. SupremeMaster - Accumulate 25 points
5. GrandMaster - Win the annual 'GM Qualifiers Tournament' which is only open to SM's and GM's
"

And I'm not too sure what you mean by 'simple number raking system'

And what? I never mentioned anything about ELO did I? If I did it was probably the idea to take the ELO ratings of people from the leaderboards into consideration when awarding titles (perhaps as a suggestion or change to the current ideas)

Titles devalue it because everyone is going to be a "master". But the titles in no way relate to the actual skill of the given player. But because these players are going to be deemed a "master", theres going to be elitism and discrimination by "master" players and "non-master" players.

ELO comes about because you are comparing subterfuge to Chess. ELO is used in chess to determine the ranking of a player. But ELO is a non-factor in Tournaments.

A simple number ranking system is "first place gets first, second gets second, third gets third, and so on."

And I'm sure new tournament makers like us are going to want some help in making good tournaments. Of course, hosting one tournament does not make you an experienced host. There may seem to be relatively simple problems to solve for now, but without experience how can one tell? Its like looking at the top of an iceberg while others have never seen one and saying 'I know what an iceberg looks like' when really you've only seen a tenth of it, which floats above the water. A person who really can tell you that you don't know that you don't know (or which is part of the unknown unknowns - you don't know that you don't know) what the whole iceberg looks like is someone who has really seen the entire iceberg. And the STOC will (eventually) be able to act as this person, more or less, although there are always things we can improve on, it will be better than just letting the newbies make tournaments themselves.

I don't think theres going to be a huge number of tournaments going on in the near future. It's a lot of work to do and the nature of the game means a tournament is going to take at least a month.

I don't like to pick on people, but just take spungee's E-Sports Subterfuge 6 Player Tournament (sorry) as an example. Seeing as you have already made the mistake of starting a game without enough people, I warned spungee about this and the rules were changed. If that wwas part of the guidelines of tournament making then people who read through them will make better tournaments. And of course, you might say that this is a trivial mistake that is easily fixed, but the problem is that we don't know how many more problems are still to come, and how complex they may turn out to be. And of course there is no limit on how good a tournament can be run.

So basically with STOC, the tournaments will be a lot better, and we won't have to have everyone constantly poiting out things for newbie-hosts. And the best part is that you don't even have to do anything, you can just let me and the others who are passionate about Subterfuge do it (I'm not saying that you aren't, but certainly not in the area of tournament committees)

A committee is not needed to make a suggestion on improving someones tournament.

just made a pool. if majority say yes. we made this tournament commitee. if not, maybe next time. so ?